This is a call to every tournament organizer.
I am trying to assess the impact of a variable time limit on finals.
Since this is already possible per the tournament rules*, I propose the following experimentation to set the framework:
The time limit of the final round is set to 2 hours. Each time a player is ousted in the final round, 10 minutes of additional time are added to the time limit.
This experimentation is purely on a voluntary basis considering that is may add up to 30 minutes to the final.
Reports must be sent at with the following informations: link to the tournament results in the VEKN calendar time of each oust using the following format: "xx minutes after the start of the game". how the additional time (if any) had an impact on later developments of the game the opinion of each finalist about the rule and how it had an impact or not on their game your postal mail address Only one report per tournament will be accepted. The first 10 reporters will receive a Humble Bundle by postal mail.
This experimentation will end on June, 1st 2019.
* Reference
>
> 3.1.1. Round Time Limits
> Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judge's option.
>
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> thelonius wrote:
> I Think we Will try it on saturday friendly tournament before the Italian grand prix
>
Fantastic! Don't forget the report
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
It is great to ackowledge that there might be an issue, and to try to remedy it.
But this wouldn't change anything to the games with 0 dead. Or do you think people would be less protective of that one potential death (like, crosstable) if they thought it would gain them the time to kill also ?
> Orpheus wrote:
> It is great to ackowledge that there might be an issue, and to try to remedy it.
>
> But this wouldn't change anything to the games with 0 dead. Or do you think people would be less protective of that one potential death (like, crosstable) if they thought it would gain them the time to kill also ?
>
This is an extra incentive for ousting players during the final round. Testing will tell if it changes something or not.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Orpheus wrote:
> It is great to ackowledge that there might be an issue, and to try to remedy it.
>
Except statistical analysis on tournament events (on another forum thread) shows that it is not an issue. I'm not sure what we think we're gaining by attempting to alter rules when the data shows that the current format is working well. The problem is a perception issue, not a format issue. People think there's a problem, so they want to fix it. The data just doesn't back the theory.
I'm curious to see if there will be tournaments where this makes a difference.
"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise
garourimgazette.wordpress.com/
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
> Matis wrote:
> I dont like it, this just give advantatge to blockers and stuff/shit like that.
>
Hmmm, if blockers and "stuff/shit like that" just sit here and don't oust how does this actually work into their benefit?
More time means someone made an oust. Which means is going to win. Shit like that is just going to block block block and watch while someone else grabs the GW....
Finnish Politics!
> kschaefer wrote:
>
> > Orpheus wrote:
> > It is great to ackowledge that there might be an issue, and to try to remedy it.
> >
> Except statistical analysis on tournament events (on another forum thread) shows that it is not an issue. I'm not sure what we think we're gaining by attempting to alter rules when the data shows that the current format is working well. The problem is a perception issue, not a format issue. People think there's a problem, so they want to fix it. The data just doesn't back the theory.
>
But perception = reality.
What people perceive effects how they play. Easier to demonstrate with gambling: people tend to play in a less guarded manner playing with chips over loose cash, for example.
I will admit that the impact will be entirely dependent upon perception, but it is nevertheless possible it could effect gameplay and by extension results.
On walls:
Combat walls thrive in the three-way. Now, seeding will be king in any tactical decisions in the final, but additional time for let's say guns could influence if they keep a crossrable in the game, or if they need to cripple thier predator to make room for a more "manageable" . Of course, too seeds gotta go in some of these cases, but an extra 20 minutes to guarantee an attrition plan pays off? Golden. Being someone in the last 3 with such a deck as predator or prey has added reason at that point in the game to pursue risky moves with large payoff as well..
I'm interested in what will happen.
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> But perception = reality.
>
You mean perception != reality
> Lönkka wrote:
> Hmmm, if blockers and "stuff/shit like that" just sit here and don't oust how does this actually work into their benefit?
>
> More time means someone made an oust. Which means is going to win. Shit like that is just going to block block block and watch while someone else grabs the GW....
>
I can see the logic behind the suggestion. Someone making a lunge will open up his defense in order to deliver the killing blow, trusting that the time is called before his/her predator gets to take advantage of the situation. Adding more time on the clock will give opportunity to that predator to actually try to get a lunge themselves. If it succeeds, more time is added to the clock and so on. This means that the deck making the first oust cannot trust it being the deciding factor in a win. They might have to play differently.
I'm not sure if people are willing, or even able to change their strategies according to this rule though. I have noticed VTES is pretty stagnant and conservative in terms of new strategies or decktypes. Not all decks are capable of making a lunge. Thats mostly the purview of dominate and other high bleed modifier decks. Part of the reason why I've wished dominate get nerfed, and reduce its lunging potential. If a deck can't make such a huge lunge, it must adjust its play to be more aggressive early on. As long as that lunge is there, they can play it safe and static for most of the game.
Smoking craters tell no tales.
—Tex talks Battletech
Well I have to agree about that lunge thing, I've seen it in at least the three french / belgian finals I've attended. Added time would have changed things in many cases (sometimes not the victor, surely the number of VPs !).
Seed weight still has more weight than other factors for play style in the finals. The added time will influence lower seeds more, but the exact ways would depend on the deck.
But top seed would still be able to use the same strategy as them with some decks; lunge 2 high seed players off the board and you're golden in bleeding heavy decks, try to get the most favorable 3 way In combat walls, get the correct players to get vps in heavy vote decks...... all the while adding the allure of extra time for someone to oust you.
I guess it's at least different. Everything is hypothetical until enough results show up.
> Ankha wrote:
> ]This is an extra incentive for ousting players during the final round. Testing will tell if it changes something or not.
>
Could you explain your thinking on that? An extra ten minutes is an extra ten minutes for everyone. I'm not sure it incentivizes me to get a VP if it gives everyone ten extra minutes. That may help me, it may hurt me. Early-mid-game - say I get an oust 80 minutes in to 120 (now 130) minutes - I probably can't predict that. In the dying moments - minute 119 of 120, possibly soon to be 130 - I may well be thinking "Yeah, but if I get an oust now, that probably means my predator gets to come at me again..." which might well be bad for me. It may of course mean I get a few extra minutes to oust my grand-prey (now prey) who is also teetering on the brink of being ousted, but that's not a given - it'll obviously depend on the situation.
I'm not saying the change is good or bad, but I'm not seeing the incentive here. It feels like a very mixed blessing that could hurt you just as much as help you.
In my opinion, what slows some finals the most, are 1 or more players trying this 1vp snipe thing at the very end.
So instead of coming up with a plan from the start to get a gamewin, they will slow down the game and try to get the vp in the last seconds to win the final.
with this rule it gets harder to do, so i am all good with it.
maybe some finalist will then try and play for the more risky gamewin instead
> thelonius wrote:
> I Think we Will try it on saturday friendly tournament before the Italian grand prix
>
So how did it go?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I will suggest it to finalists at my event on Saturday if the schedule allows it (we are already tight with the venue's hours of operation). If we end up doing it, I'll mention feedback in my tournament report.
Christian Chénard
prince of Gatineau QC, Canada
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > thelonius wrote:
> > I Think we Will try it on saturday friendly tournament before the Italian grand prix
> >
> So how did it go?
>
I mean i Will try it on december Sorry
Lurking in the underground of Bologna, Italy
As promise, here's the feedback from Gatineau:
I suggested it on Saturday and finalists were not warm to the idea so we stuck to the "hard" 2h limit. The game reached it's full conclusion with 10-15 minutes to spare so the whole debate was moot.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > ]This is an extra incentive for ousting players during the final round. Testing will tell if it changes something or not.
> >
> Could you explain your thinking on that? An extra ten minutes is an extra ten minutes for everyone. I'm not sure it incentivizes me to get a VP if it gives everyone ten extra minutes. That may help me, it may hurt me. Early-mid-game - say I get an oust 80 minutes in to 120 (now 130) minutes - I probably can't predict that. In the dying moments - minute 119 of 120, possibly soon to be 130 - I may well be thinking "Yeah, but if I get an oust now, that probably means my predator gets to come at me again..." which might well be bad for me. It may of course mean I get a few extra minutes to oust my grand-prey (now prey) who is also teetering on the brink of being ousted, but that's not a given - it'll obviously depend on the situation.
>
> I'm not saying the change is good or bad, but I'm not seeing the incentive here. It feels like a very mixed blessing that could hurt you just as much as help you.
>
The extra time has an importance only in the late game (let's say the last 40 minutes) . A simple example:
Let's say I'm first seed and I have a VP. The clock is ticking, there's 15 minutes left (including the extra time from my first VP if we used that rule) and my predator and I are in a bad shape. In fact, my predator is going to get ousted. My best chance of winning is to reach the time limit, so I begin to play more slowly, without stalling. My grand-predator ousts his prey, and we reach time-limit, I win.
With the suggested change, my grand-predator has a chance of killing me too, and if he does, he probably deserves winning the final over me playing slowly to ensure victory.
If the top-seed position had been the other way round (him being first seed, me being a lower seed), then it would probably have forced me to play faster instead, so I can get another VP, since he would win otherwise.
Either way, time is added when something important is happening. If someone is ousted, the whole balance of the table changes and other important things can happen now. Adding extra time allow those things to happen and make the game more interesting and rewarding.
(At some level, I realize it's a bit like a Last Stand effect, except that if you have an extra turn but no time to play it, it's pointless).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> thelonius wrote:
> We did apply it on Saturday but all the 4 oust were in the first 90 minutes...
>
That's a good final
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Let's say I'm first seed and I have a VP. The clock is ticking, there's 15 minutes left (including the extra time from my first VP if we used that rule) and my predator and I are in a bad shape. In fact, my predator is going to get ousted. My best chance of winning is to reach the time limit, so I begin to play more slowly, without stalling. My grand-predator ousts his prey, and we reach time-limit, I win.
> With the suggested change, my grand-predator has a chance of killing me too, and if he does, he probably deserves winning the final over me playing slowly to ensure victory.
>
Not seeing an incentive effect here.
If the grand-predator wants to win, he has to oust his prey, whether or not it gets him ten extra minutes or not. Absent some bizarro Life Boon type situation (or similar weird, corner case effects), the only thing that gets him closer to winning is ousting his prey.
Yes, giving ten extra minutes changes the outcome, but it doesn't change the incentive - the prey of the grand-predator must be ousted for the grand-predator to win. The game would also have run differently if the final was just a flat 2.5 hours, and the incentive would have been the same - the grand-predator has to oust the prey to win, because that's how the game works.
> Ankha wrote:
> Either way, time is added when something important is happening. If someone is ousted, the whole balance of the table changes and other important things can happen now. Adding extra time allow those things to happen and make the game more interesting and rewarding.
>
When things change, things change, yes. This is trivially, axiomatically true. It doesn't mean that the thing you're changing is incentivizing anything specific - it just makes people account for the change.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
> When things change, things change, yes. This is trivially, axiomatically true. It doesn't mean that the thing you're changing is incentivizing anything specific - it just makes people account for the change.
>
This is the difference with a fixed time limit of 2.5 hours; also, I'm not talking about a small change, but a major change that alters the dynamics of the table.
If there's 15 minutes left (out of x hours), the player who has to score two VPs for the game win may just give up, because after all, even if he gets the VP, he won't have time to get the second VP he needs (it works also if he needs three VPs).
With extra time, there's still a chance he manages to get his second VP. I think this would make the end games more interesting for everyone in some games. If in that case, the player still gives up, it's a pity but there's no harm done. Anyway, there is an incentive for him to try.
Other games (such as everybody is ousted in 90 minutes) are probably not affected by this change, which leads to the question:
> thelonius wrote:
> We did apply it on Saturday but all the 4 oust were in the first 90 minutes...
>
It seems unlikely, but did it somehow alter the play? (Opinion of the players would be valuable here).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
The finals are already dissimilar to the preliminary rounds. Why are we trying to make it more dissimilar instead of less?
The proposal ends up creating a different game of VtES in the finals.
We've mentioned this elsewhere, but it bears repeating here (since it is more similar to how the preliminary rounds are played): what if the final seating was randomized and seeding only affected ties?
> Ankha wrote:
> If there's 15 minutes left (out of x hours), the player who has to score two VPs for the game win may just give up, because after all, even if he gets the VP, he won't have time to get the second VP he needs (it works also if he needs three VPs).
>
But your explanation of the incentive was baed on the fact that a player who is not currently first gets a VP in the final few minutes then gets an extra 10 minutes. So that's getting two VPs in the final 15 minutes. If a player can't get 2 VPs in 15 minutes, your incentive effect that you extolled apparently isn't an incentive. And if they can't get 2 VPs in 5+10 minutes, they certainly can't get 2 VPs in 5 minutes. So you seem to be arguing against yourself.
> Ankha wrote:
> With extra time, there's still a chance he manages to get his second VP.
>
Except, there's also the chance that another player on the table comes and eats his face with the extra time.
Consider the situation where the same player can lunge to get 1VP. That makes them win - either because that's the only VP on the table, or because they (for example) are the second seed and the fourth seed has 1VP too, so the second seed will win. (Many other options are possible.) Under the current situation, that player may lunge in the last two minutes of the game, and win. Under an altered situation, they may lunge, get that VP, and then - in the extra ten minutes - have their predator come and eat their face because they're tapped out from lunging. So they don't do it. So the player is disincentivized to lunge in the first place.
> Ankha wrote:
> I think this would make the end games more interesting for everyone in some games.
>
And less interesting in others, where the extra ten minutes hurts the player who could create it.
You are not positing a one-sided change where some end games are made more interesting, and everything else remains as it is. You are suggesting a change where a whole variety of end games change in a whole variety of different ways: some may be more exciting (player who lunges can get 2VP, not just 1), some will be less interesting (player who would lunge doesn't, because what's the point in letting themself be ousted?), and some will be different (this player wins rather than that player). It's not at all clear either that the change of outcomes will improve things, rather than increasing player caution due to the uncertainty. At 8 (or possibly 18) minutes to go, a player looking at their minion phase and wondering whether to play cautiously, because they might get bled again. That probably leads to a less exciting, and potentially less interesting, outcome.
> jamesatzephyr wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> > With extra time, there's still a chance he manages to get his second VP.
> >
> Except, there's also the chance that another player on the table comes and eats his face with the extra time.
>
> Consider the situation where the same player can lunge to get 1VP. That makes them win - either because that's the only VP on the table, or because they (for example) are the second seed and the fourth seed has 1VP too, so the second seed will win. (Many other options are possible.) Under the current situation, that player may lunge in the last two minutes of the game, and win. Under an altered situation, they may lunge, get that VP, and then - in the extra ten minutes - have their predator come and eat their face because they're tapped out from lunging. So they don't do it. So the player is disincentivized to lunge in the first place.
>
Let's call that player "A". Your logic is wrong because A can't win if he doesn't oust his prey, so he has to do it.
1. A does nothing => A doesn't win (ends up 2nd)
2. A does something:
2.1 A ousts his prey (+10 minutes)...
2.1.1 and his predator doesn't oust him => A wins
2.1.2 and his predator ousts him => A doesn't win (ends up 2nd)
2.2 A doesn't oust his prey => A doesn't win (ends up 2nd)
So the only way for A to win is to do something. In the worst case scenario, A ends up second, which is exactly the same result as if he hadn't done anything.
Now, let's say the rule isn't used (and we must not mix both scenarios), A would win, perhaps by playing slowly after his lounge, at the expense of A's predator who would need a few more minutes more to win, which is also a case covered by the rule.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Only an idea about the "player does nothing" part, what if we have in finals first,second,third...place?
I think that in this scenario the player will go for his VP, because he is alone 2nd in the tournament, will not give up and the most other players will play faster because they will also go for a VP.
Maybe the problem is that now 4 players a 2nd so they will not risk too much.
As said, only an idea.
There used to be 3rd, 4th and 5th place but that caused people to do deals ("I'll help you win and you help me get 2nd place") so it was decided that all non-winning players are 2nd place.
Which is all good.
No need to touch that old can of worms even with a 10ft pole!
Finnish Politics!
> lionel wrote:
> maybe we could test, time have changed, maybe we could have much interesting final tables whith a classement !
>
Testing is essential.
Problem will be getting a substantial enough pool of results with a broad enough pool of players and decks to have an even remotely scientific sample.
So......
We could test it in 2019 during WoN events on both sides of the pond? Nobody will caught off guard this far in advance. Historically in NA, the later tournaments get a bigger draw, but just an idea.
Edit: I'm talking about the time bonus. Not trading one issue for another with changing final tables "position "
> lionel wrote:
> maybe we could test, time have changed, maybe we could have much interesting final tables whith a classement !
>
Both systems have been tested for more than 10 years each, and I am pretty sure we don't want to go back making horrible deals during the final (to split prizes for instance).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
We did not use the time limit variant in the finals of our tournament today, but I will give a (somewhat estimated) analysis anyhow:
Table order during the final was 1st seed -> 2nd -> 5th -> 3rd -> 4th
Ousting order was: 1st seed, then 4th. 3rd seed won when the table timed out, after the 2nd seed tried to oust the 5th during his last turn. Without the time limit variant, the 3rd seed might have lost this final, if the 5th didn't play a strong enough wall deck to survive the lunge.
However, with the time limit variant, the game probably would not have timed out. Considering discussions during the game and looking at the decks played, the 3rd seed would have won the game with more time on the clock. Thus, for the total outcome of the tournament, the variant would not have changed anything, but still I think it would have felt better to have the game played out.
Prince of Bonn, Germany
> Yomyael wrote:
> Thus, for the total outcome of the tournament, the variant would not have changed anything, but still I think it would have felt better to have the game played out.
>
If the preliminary rounds can timeout, then why is it so troublesome that the finals can time out? In other words, why do you feel that would have been better (to play the game to completion)?
The difference in my opinion is, that there are multiple (at least 2, in this case 3) preliminary rounds. Even with 1 or 2 timing out and winning only 1 one can have a spot in the final. So a time out isn't so bad - you have more chances to get a spot in the final.
During the final, everyone is under a lot of pressure and tries to think everything through to the end before taking any action, maybe even discussing a few minutes over possible outcomes before anouncing anything. So, naturally, turns take more time. And there are no further chances. It is that game, that moment, and loosing it because a clock says you have to stop now... I would find that very unsatisfying.
Also, I have seen during preliminary rounds players forfeiting the game a few minutes before the time out, because the other player clearly wins the game and just does not have enough time to do so within the time limit. This will not happen during finals, even though the other player would take the game - sometimes even a few minutes would be enough.
That is what makes the difference for me.
Prince of Bonn, Germany
> Yomyael wrote:
> During the final, everyone is under a lot of pressure and tries to think everything through to the end before taking any action, maybe even discussing a few minutes over possible outcomes before anouncing anything. So, naturally, turns take more time. And there are no further chances.
>
The existing tournament rules account for that possibility by allowing the final to have a different time limit than the preliminary rounds.
3.1.1 Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judge's option.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the players in the final round will (in general, factoring in luck and players bringing experimental decks etc.) be the better players at the tournament, so a number of things will go quicker - less need for players to pick up and read cards they've not seen before as an inexperienced new player might.
> Yomyael wrote:
> It is that game, that moment, and loosing it because a clock says you have to stop now... I would find that very unsatisfying.
>
This will continue to happen under the proposed variant - it will just sometimes happen at a different time.
> Yomyael wrote:
> This will not happen during finals, even though the other player would take the game - sometimes even a few minutes would be enough.
>
And this will continue to happen under the proposed variant. A player might be able to mop up the rest of the table if there are 15 extra minutes from each oust but not if there are 10, because she needs the extra five minutes to oust her prey (a formidable wall) before going on to everyone else.
Some things we have talked about the time limit variant in Finland. Copied the text straight from my post in Garou Rim: Night Moves TWD announcement.
First of all, I personally think that it is great that we can test different systems for finals, as I believe the system is not perfect as it is, and its good that there is something happening in order to change that.
The problem is that the issue with the finals system is not that straight forward, and not only about the time limit. This is something we have talked about a lot in Finland. Earlier this summer, in the 10th Hiekkaharju Nightmares tournament, there was a situation in the finals, where the top seed could have back ousted his predator, who already had a VP, just to get 10 more minutes to play, and secure his VP. And get 10 more minutes to play etc. After long discussion about what happened there, we came into a conclusion that this change can be ultimately very unhealthy for the game, as it can change the dynamics of the game hugely. The thing is, that with each oust giving more time to finish the game, it becomes a viable strategy for the top seed, to start giving VPs to his grand predators one by one, and winning the tournament like that. It is true that this is not possible with every deck, and has been a strategy that could have been used before too, longer time just makes it actually viable in some cases. Even as a possibility this seems very abusive and can break the game totally in the finals. Making the most important game of the tournament kind of a "non game" in the first place.
There is also other problems with the system. Getting more play time for ousts makes decks and cards that slow down the game considerably more rewarding, as if you can slow down the game, and be consistent, it can become really hard for anyone else to do anything relevant. And when the time is getting low, you can just start ousting people and getting more time to get more people down. So this doesn't really even solve the issue of top seed playing slow just to win by time. The change even makes it more viable strategy, as there is less of a risk of losing to some one else lunging successfully.
Both of these examples favor same kind of decks. Decks that are consistent and can play slow, and have the possibility of some kind of table control. Namely wall decks, MMPA decks and combat decks in some cases.
Prince of Joensuu, Finland